Interim Report - REPORT_NO218, November 1982

1. 690. The Indian. Labour Association, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Maharashtra Branch, submitted a complaint of violation of trade union rights in. India in a communication dated 29 January 1982. It sent further information in a communication of 19 February 1982. The Government replied to the complaint in a communication dated 14 May 1982.
2. 691. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 692. The complainant states that, within the framework of the nation-wide 24-hour strike on 19 January 1982, which was called to protest against, inter alia, the National Security Act, 1980, and the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981, the Government arrested Mr. P. Chidambaram, one of the complainant's State General Secretaries and a notable trade union leader of 20 years standing. He was allegedly arrested by the police at 1.30 a.m. on 21 January 1982 at his residence in Ahmedabad under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; while in police custody he was denied drinking water and toilet facilities; in the afternoon he was transferred to Sabarmati Central Prison by virtue of a detention order dated 18 January made under the National Security Act. Four workers of the Gujarat Mini Steel Factory were, according to the complainant, also arrested and detained under the Act in the same prison.
2. 693. In its further communication, the complainant states that, when the police arrived at his residence, Mr. Chidambaram asked to see a warrant or a written order and was told that he was wanted only to record his statement in connection "with a case". Hence, the police had not brought any warrant. It was only when changing from rickshaw transportation to a police van that he was told that he was being arrested in connection with an incident which had taken place on 25 October 1981. According to the complainant, while in policy custody Mr. Chidambaram was not allowed to meet or consult with his family, friends or legal counsel. During the afternoon transfer he was refused the opportunity to lodge complaints before the courts regarding his harassment while in police custody. The complaint specifies that Mr. Chidambaram was arrested under section 3(2) of the above-mentioned Act and that six (and not four, as previously stated) steelworkers were arrested on 18 January 1982:. Their names are: Sachdev Singh, Satyadev Singh, Munneshwar Prasad Kibilal, Ram Vagina Pahelwan, Pam Suraj and Brijraj Harkhu, and they are all activists of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat.
3. 694. The complainant states that over 50,000 workers employed in and around Ahmedabad observed a 24-hour strike on 29 January 1982, including a procession and a public meeting, demanding the immediate release of Mr. Chidambaram. The Government released him on 7 February.

B. The Government's reply

1. 695. According to the Government, Mr. Chidambaram was ordered to be detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act on 18 January 1982 for the maintenance of public order. The grounds for detention and copies of other relevant documents were served on him on 23 January, that is, within the time limit set out in the Act. According to the State Government of Gujarat, Mr. Chidambaram had a long record of criminal activities in the past - three offences in 1978, one in 1979 and one in 1980 - for organising crowds and inciting them to strikes and violence, involving the use of weapons, which caused injuries to workers who refused to join them.
2. 696. The Government states that, in connection with the 19 January strike, Mr. Chidambaram circulated a printed leaflet and incited workers. He was thus detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Government of Gujarat reviewed his case and revoked the detention order on 6 February 1982. Lastly, the Government states that this action, did not in any way infringe legitimate trade union activity.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 697. The Committee notes that, while the arrest of the trade union leader, Mr. Chidambaram, is not disputed, the reasons given for his arrest are contradictory. The complainant implies that the arrest was an abuse of the National Security Act, whereas according to the Government the arrest was a preventive measure carried out in accordance with the Act for the maintenance of public order and was not an infringement of legitimate trade union activities. The Committee further notes the complainant's allegations that, although he was released after 17 days, he suffered ill-treatment when in police custody and was refused the right to consult with his family or legal counsel.
2. 698. While observing that the Government does not, specifically reply to the latter allegations, the Committee would point out generally that, in cases of alleged ill-treatment of detainees, it has stressed the importance of the right of trade unionists, like all other persons, to enjoy the guarantees afforded by due process of law in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration, of Human Rights. In view of the fact that the trade unionist concerned was informed of the grounds of his arrest within the time limit prescribed by the Act - grounds aimed at the maintenance of public order and not at trade union activity - and was released soon after, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
3. 699. As concerns the alleged arrest of six named trade unionists in the steel sector under the same section of the National Security Act, the Committee notes that the Government does not supply any information in this connection. The Committee, accordingly, requests the Government to provide its observations in respect of these allegations.